When a debate starts about what is 'natural' and 'unnatural' I always tend to look to the animal kingdom and at our fellow mammals, who are not inhibited in the same way as we humans. I would go out on a limb and says that the predominant pattern is that the female is the one who tends to the children and makes the 'nest'.

I think a large cohort of women would like the opportunity to devote more time to being good mothers/wives instead of working, however some women naturally have more testosterone/career ambition and find the domestic life a living hell. We humans are just as naturally varied as animals.

Some female executives/high-level managers really are like men without penises though lol.

(Original post by HighestKungFu)
When a debate starts about what is 'natural' and 'unnatural' I always tend to look to the animal kingdom and at our fellow mammals, who are not inhibited in the same way as we humans. I would go out on a limb and says that the predominant pattern is that the female is the one who tends to the children and makes the 'nest'.

I think a large cohort of women would like the opportunity to devote more time to being good mothers/wives instead of working, however some women naturally have more testosterone/career ambition and find the domestic life a living hell. We humans are just as naturally varied as animals.

Some female executives/high-level managers really are like men without penises though lol.

I somewhat object to your suggestion that the only women who don't work can be good mothers and wives.

Personally, there's nothing I'd like more than to be able to stay at home with my children (in the future, obviously). However, my partner cannot get a job so I currently have to keep us afloat. Having said that, I still do everything a "housewife" would do, cooking/cleaning/gardening etc because he does absolutely NOTHING all day. So I'm basically holding down two major jobs, plus a degree, while he sits at home and plays on his games console.. but that's a rant for another day.

The idea of being a housewife or a stay-at-home mum makes me feel a bit ill tbh. I think it's more a case of men still expecting their wife to give up her job once they get babies, and of society still expecting women to be perfect mothers with no unnecessary distractions like a 'career' or a 'life'. It's people like OP who contribute to this state of affairs by making out that somehow all women are the same and think the same and want the same.

(Original post by chefdave)
Despite the couple of decades' worth of propaganda we've been subjected to on 'equality' and 'positive discrimination' deep down wouldn't a lot of women much to prefer to be in the home raising children and performing necessary and often rewarding domestic tasks?

Is it an inconvenient truth that a woman's natural place is in the home?

For some women. Yes.

For me...HAHAHAHAHAHA HELL NO! My god, A life stuck at home raising children at my age. Worst.nightmare.ever. I want to travel, everywhere. It would be unfair on the child and myself because they would either be dragged around and have to move/leave friends every few years or in boarding school. The latter I attended and though loved it is not in my opinion a brilliant way to raise a child...

I would despise being a homecleaner, I like to keep my surroundings tidy/clean so it doesn't get overwhelmingly dirty/unclean and turn from a chore into a 2 day cleaning mission. But I do NOT get satisfaction from it. (Bar having clean bed sheets...who doesn't love clean bed sheets )

I wouldn't like to be a housewife as the dependency would feel too much like a trap. As much as I love my current boyfriend I'm not sure it's healthy to trust any one individual with your entire life. Especially not now divorce is so rife.

Ideally I'd like a job that would allow me to be around my future kids a lot. I'm working my way up as a consultant ecologist so one day I might set up my own consultancy and I'd be able to have my own home study and perhaps take the kids on surveys if they're off school.

I wouldn't like the idea of having children and never seeing them or being too knackered to interact. I think I'd rather not have any at all if that was the only option.

That said I'd rather be a housewife than work in a really ****ty job, which most people end up doing.

(Original post by HighestKungFu)
When a debate starts about what is 'natural' and 'unnatural' I always tend to look to the animal kingdom and at our fellow mammals, who are not inhibited in the same way as we humans. I would go out on a limb and says that the predominant pattern is that the female is the one who tends to the children and makes the 'nest'.

I think a large cohort of women would like the opportunity to devote more time to being good mothers/wives instead of working, however some women naturally have more testosterone/career ambition and find the domestic life a living hell. We humans are just as naturally varied as animals.

Some female executives/high-level managers really are like men without penises though lol.

So... Basically you're saying that the only reason women would not want to be housewifes is because they're like men?

Determining the 'natural place' for anyone is withdrawing their freedom. While some women will prefer to do so, I can vouch that at least one wouldn't: me. Women should have the choice to either enter the workforce or stay at home, and they should be congratulated for either choice they make. Nonetheless, one cannot determine that the woman's natural place is anywhere.

I've never really seen it as a bad thing. I think the problem is the idea it is in some way a less option than having a career. I women who stays at home or even works part time, but has a great family life, a nice home and organises and holds lots of social functions has a pretty rich life and fulfils a role most men would see a massively valuable.

Men have a automatic will, even a need, to provide. A man who earns less than his wife isn't providing as much, a man who loses his job, who can't afford to buy his wife things, all humiliating as you aren't being the provider. I have no need for a career only for the financials it provides. A career has to have a purpose.

I doubt being a homemaker is something most young girls see as their aim, but I think something many might see in a better light as they get older and have a home, a partner and maybe financials aren't so much of a drive.

It’s definitely not true of all women, but maybe it’s true of most parents. I can't blame anyone with children for wanting to stay at home with them.
Personally being a homemaker is the last thing I'd want to do, but then I'm not maternal at all and I can't see myself ever trusting any man enough to be completely dependent on his money.

(Original post by HighestKungFu)
When a debate starts about what is 'natural' and 'unnatural' I always tend to look to the animal kingdom and at our fellow mammals, who are not inhibited in the same way as we humans. I would go out on a limb and says that the predominant pattern is that the female is the one who tends to the children and makes the 'nest'.

I think a large cohort of women would like the opportunity to devote more time to being good mothers/wives instead of working, however some women naturally have more testosterone/career ambition and find the domestic life a living hell. We humans are just as naturally varied as animals.

Some female executives/high-level managers really are like men without penises though lol.

It has absolutely nothing to do with testosterone. All testosterone does is make you more aggressive/competitive. If women were naturally inclined to stay in the home and look after children, testosterone would probably encourage them to shove bottles of milk down their babies throats every morning and punch their children to sleep each night, but do their "duties" nonetheless, because an instinct isn't dictated by one hormone alone.

Some do, some don't. I don't think it's a natural thing at all, it might be more about what you're used to. It might be seen as a 'natural' thing to do because it was what was done in the past, women pretty much had to give up their careers when they got married (at least at home that's what used to happen). My mum worked when we were kids and it worked very well. I would hate to be stuck at home all day, I would crack with the boredom. I also absolutely hate cleaning lol If I earn enough money later I am getting a cleaner. Oh, and I'm not having kids so there would be no point in being home. I could definitely not depend on a guy for money either. I'd feel guilty ever asking for extra if I wanted something.

My friend will probably stay at home a few days a week when she has kids (she's more maternal than me!). I'd hate her to give up her job totally to stay at home as she's a vet and worked so hard. But I would put good money on her marrying a vet and having a vet-household filled with animals and very successful children just like her parents. She's the perfect type!

If I was going to stay at home then it'd be because I'd have a home business. The only reason I'm not starting it now is because my landlord won't allow me take out a licence in his property

(Original post by Historophilia)
I somewhat object to your suggestion that the only women who don't work can be good mothers and wives.

I don't think that at all. It may be implied but that is just a coincidence. What I meant is they can devote more time to it, not that they are inadequate and unable to devote sufficient time to be a good parent (although some children with two high-flying parents can feel neglected being raised predominantly by an au pair/grand-parents/nannies. Winston Churchill was in fact a prime example).

I know my comments about testosterone will no doubt (and already have) received criticism but I have met/seen many high-level women who whilst do display feminine qualities, are more inclined towards male traits. Of course they can be good wives and mothers still but they seem to lack a domestic quality, and come across as 'hard'.

I also saw an article about a woman who was a nymphomaniac, and it turned out that she had very high levels of testosterone. Hormones matter.

(Original post by Dragonfly07)
It has absolutely nothing to do with testosterone. All testosterone does is make you more aggressive/competitive. If women were naturally inclined to stay in the home and look after children, testosterone would probably encourage them to shove bottles of milk down their babies throats every morning and punch their children to sleep each night, but do their "duties" nonetheless, because an instinct isn't dictated by one hormone alone.

Yeah because aggression/competiveness play absolutely no part in making it to the top...sigh.

I think that many women can end up in the home longer than they would wish because of decisions they make when their children are young. At that time, early in their careers, they may not be earning a huge amount and if they worked, they would have to spend all their earnings on childcare. However, when they want to re-enter the workforce, they will go in at the level at which they left (at best), so they may have intended two or three years out, but end up at home until their children are in secondary school and no longer need constant supervision.

(Original post by HighestKungFu)
I don't think that at all. It may be implied but that is just a coincidence. What I meant is they can devote more time to it, not that they are inadequate and unable to devote sufficient time to be a good parent (although some children with two high-flying parents can feel neglected being raised predominantly by an au pair/grand-parents/nannies. Winston Churchill was in fact a prime example).

Both my parents work, and my mother has always been the high flyer and i had nannies when I was an age for them. I in no way feel neglected or abandoned by my parents, I am very close to them and I admire hugely what they have achieved in their careers (particularly my mothers) and see them as excellent role models.

Time spent with children doesn't automatically equate to quality of parenting.

I know my comments about testosterone will no doubt (and already have) received criticism but I have met/seen many high-level women who whilst do display feminine qualities, are more inclined towards male traits. Of course they can be good wives and mothers still but they seem to lack a domestic quality, and come across as 'hard'.

They are only seen as 'male traits' because wanting a career etc. is traditionally seen as being the preserve of men. Therefore if a woman wants a career and not to be a stay at home mum you assume she is acting like a man, when in fact she is just acting as is natural for her as a person.

Ideas about 'male' or 'female' character traits are bizarre, people don't fit ito these neat boxes. Anyway, why does it matter if, as you say a woman appears 'hard' if she is also a good mother? And what exactly do you mean by 'domestic'? Do you really expect women to bring home-made cakes to board-room meetings?

Saying career women are 'more like men' is ridiculous, career women are more like people who want to have successful and fulfilling careers, saying that wanting this is 'being like a man' is frankly insulting.

What you are implying is that women who don't fall into your ideas of what is normal for a woman in terms of personality and behaviour are somehow 'less of a woman'. Whether you mean to or not, this is what you are suggesting.

Women of all personality types and outlooks on life work rather than staying at home, there is in no way a personality type that all of them fit into.

And your comments about Testosterone are rightly being ridiculed, since you have no evidence to back them up, have no knowledge whatsoever of the average testosterone levels that these 'hard' women have.

And anyway, there is no reason for high levels of testosterone to make people want a career. Testosterone is linked to agression, being aggressive does not equal wanting a career or being good in the workplace.

The reason you are making this link is because again you view wanting a career as being a 'male' trait and since Testoserone is found in higher levels in men, women who want careers must on some level be physically like men! they must in someway be abnormal and different from normal women!

In my view that's pretty insulting to any woman who is a working mother or plans to be one or who aims to be successful and respected in her future career!

I also saw an article about a woman who was a nymphomaniac, and it turned out that she had very high levels of testosterone. Hormones matter.

First of all, there is no such thing as Nymphomania, there is no medically recognised condition regarding having lots of sex that solely affects women. Ideas about 'Nymphomania' stem from a time when women wanting lots of sex was seen as unnatural or dangerous.

What this woman may have suffered from is Sex Addiction, which afflicts both men and women and is a lot more complicated that just wanting lots of sex, which is a perfectly natural thing in itself.

In addition, this example is completely unconnected to the issue we are disscussing.

Unless you are an expert on Behavioural Endocrinology I doubt you are qualified to claim that 'hormones matter' since you clearly have idea of how they actually do work, what they do and how they affect people.